Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

How delightfully vague. I’m sure that’s just what they want. Oh, you’re a pharmacist and don’t want to sell birth control? That’s okay because that’s your religion. You rent apartments, but don’t feel morally comfortable to a gay person? It’s cool so long as it’s for religious reasons.

Where do you draw the line here?! What if a doctor prescribes 3 hours of prayer and hands someone a rosary? Is that cool with you? What if someone stones another person to death because they went to work on a Sunday? That’s a sincere religious belief. These acts are stupid. There was one bill like this going through Kansas. It passes in the house, but thankfully it seems to be stuck in the senate.

This is post 25 of 49 for Blogathon.

Total donors is at 243 (if we hit 300, campers get to pie us in the face)! That link also has some other ideas for pledging for Blogathon.